Sarah McCarthy-Fry: Portsmouth is, of course, the home of the Royal Navy, and I have spoken to serving naval officers and ratings who greatly appreciate the scheme. Their concern is that fewer and fewer MPs have active service experience, and they think that the scheme is a way for us to understand the lives of servicemen and women and what they have to do. I should like there to be even greater participation: does the Minister think that there are barriers to participation for Members, and how can we overcome them?

Bob Spink: I declare that I am a graduate of the Royal Marines scheme. Does the Minister agree that the greatest benefit of the scheme is that is serves better to inform Members on such issues as the importance of up-to-date, quality kit that is in good condition, particularly when the armed forces are on active service in such places as Iraq? Does he take that message home?

John Reid: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. We should all bear in mind three important points about Iraq, whatever position we took about the intervention there several years ago. The present position is that, first, millions of Iraqi people are showing—by their defiance of terrorism—their commitment to building their own democratic institutions, including even risking death, and they deserve our support. Secondly, our forces are operating, with the rest of the international community, under UN Security Council resolution 1546. We are on the side of the UN at this stage, alongside the multinational forces. Thirdly, the terrorist activity is no longer a reason for us to leave Iraq. Increasingly, it is becoming the most important factor keeping us in Iraq, because the threat from the terrorists is such that the Iraqi security forces—although they are being built up—are still insufficient to counter it. Far from driving us out, the threat and actions of terrorists are one of the main reasons we stay. I merely tell the House today that, according to the latest figures, there are, for the first time, more than 200,000 Iraqi security forces, trained and capable. They are increasingly taking the lead, and we will continue to train them until the conditions are right for us to withdraw.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that on Saturday the Iranian ambassador made a very clear statement that his Government played no part whatsoever in the explosions in southern Iraq or in attacks on British forces? If the Defence Secretary has evidence, will he publish it? Is he aware that Condoleezza Rice and others who made statements over the weekend, which were, to some degree, of aggression towards Iran, would do better to keep quiet? Will he use this opportunity to say that there are no plans whatsoever to mount an attack on Iran?

Ann Winterton: In view of the withdrawal from service of the Scorpion and Sabre vehicle variants, what is the position of the remaining CVR(T)—combat vehicle reconnaissance (tracked)—fleet concerning maintenance, upgrading, and, in particular, replacement by other vehicles in future to fulfil the security role in Iraq and elsewhere?

Adam Ingram: I hesitate to wave any bits of paper in front of the hon. Gentleman in case we get into an altercation afterwards. All that the hon. Gentleman has done is recite figures that we have already reported to the House in previous answers. To ensure the delivery of the ships from Swan Hunter, we amended the contract arrangements. It is important that we get those ships.

Adam Ingram: Let me echo the hon. Gentleman's kind words about the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I was one of its early graduates, and I pay tribute to all who have participated in it. I hope that many more will do so. The scheme gives us an insight into the armed forces, but it does not give the hon. Gentleman an insight into matters of procurement. He claims that the cost increase was announced only as a result of pressure from him and the hon. Member for Gosport (Peter Viggers), but that is not the case at all. Indeed, it was announced in the local area that that had happened, and extensive explanations on the issue have been given through parliamentary questions. Of course it is important that we deliver on these ships, but it is also important to understand that the hon. Member for Gosport—who is not in his place today—is campaigning for the closure of Swan Hunter. I wonder whether that is also the position taken by the Conservative Front Bench.

Adam Ingram: I would have expected the hon. Lady to understand that it is better to get something right than to do it quickly. The review is a very comprehensive analysis of over 50 airfields, and it is not easy to reach a conclusion on what is the best balance.
	The hon. Lady knows that RAF Leeming has a future. A number of strands of work beyond the airfield review could benefit RAF Leeming. We are also considering where to base the joint combat aircraft: that involves five airfields. Those matters will be reported on soon. We hope to have completed the process by the end of the year, but we are talking about a complex process which involves moving many thousands of people around, and which may affect thousands of jobs and also local communities. We must ensure that the airfields that are retained are the best placed and best resourced to meet the demands of the RAF in the decades ahead.

Patricia Hewitt: The Government take the risk of a flu pandemic very seriously indeed. Since 1997, we have had a plan for a flu pandemic and, because of the increasing global risk and awareness, we have substantially revised that plan. An updated version was issued in March this year outlining the actions that Government and other authorities are taking. We are working across all Government Departments and sectors and are revising the plan to take into account comments received. An updated version will be published on Thursday this week.
	As the chief medical officer has stated:
	"Most experts believe that it is not a question of whether there will be another severe influenza pandemic, but when."
	We take that threat very seriously. The Government have been taking increasing action, particularly over the past 12 months, to prepare for such a pandemic.
	We are fortunate in having some of the best scientific and medical experts in the world leading our work on pandemic preparations. The World Health Organisation believes the United Kingdom to be one of the best prepared countries in the world. None the less, we will continue to step up our planning and take proportionate actions based on the best available evidence to reduce the impact of a pandemic in our country.
	It is not possible, of course, to predict with confidence when the next influenza pandemic may happen. The H5N1 virus that is circulating in poultry in south-east Asia and in other regions, including Turkey, is presenting a huge challenge for animal health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking appropriate steps to reduce the risks of avian flu spreading to birds here.
	H5N1 has caused about 60 deaths in humans to date. The virus, however, has so far only affected people directly working with infected birds. It is not readily transmitted from person to person, which is, of course, the key characteristic of a pandemic virus. None the less, in May this year, the WHO stated that that virus
	"poses a continuing and potentially growing pandemic threat."
	A human influenza pandemic could have serious implications for the UK. As the chief medical officer explained publicly yesterday, a flu pandemic could affect around 25 per cent. of the UK population. We estimate that there could be at least 50,000 deaths as a result of the pandemic, compared with around 12,000 flu-related deaths every year, and it could be significantly more.
	The NHS is well used to planning for and responding to emergencies, but every country will face enormous pressures in the event of a flu pandemic. In order to help the NHS, we have published operational guidance on contingency planning and we are funding exercises that will test NHS plans locally and those of other stakeholders.
	We are backing up the contingency plans with practical action. Antivirals will provide the first form of defence against pandemic flu. We have ordered over 14.5 million treatment courses of Tamiflu to treat people who may fall ill. This month, we will have 2.5 million treatment courses. By the end of March, we will have nearly 7.5 million and the full stockpile will be complete by September 2006. We have, of course, issued guidance to inform local NHS planning for the distribution and storage of those medicines.
	The other medical intervention that we are pursuing is vaccination because vaccine will offer the best form of protection against pandemic flu, but a vaccine cannot be manufactured until the exact flu strain is known, so it will take around four to six months until the first stocks of an appropriate vaccine become available. We are working closely with the manufacturers, other countries, the European Commission and the World Health Organisation to ensure that a vaccine can be developed as quickly as possible once a pandemic flu strain emerges. That will allow us to put arrangements in place to ensure production of vaccine for the UK population. As a further precautionary measure, however, we have also ordered between 2 million and 3 million doses of an H5N1 vaccine, delivery of which will commence early next year.
	One of the cornerstones of preparedness for pandemic flu is research. The Medical Research Council is actively involved and its chief executive will be going to south-east Asia in the next few days to see how the MRC can most usefully contribute. The Department is working closely with the Health Protection Agency to have in place a research strategy on vaccines and surveillance. We are developing clinical management guidelines with the Health Protection Agency and the British Thoracic Society to help inform management of patients who are suffering from pandemic flu. We are working with the HPA to finalise infection control guidelines that will provide valuable advice on how to reduce the risk of spread of the virus.
	Good communication with the public and with health professionals will be absolutely crucial both before and, of course, during any pandemic. We have seen recently that some of the messages in the media about avian flu, pandemic flu and seasonal flu can be confusing. We want to try to ensure that the public is provided with clear and accurate information about pandemic flu and its possible consequences. We have already carried out extensive testing with the public of communication materials that would be used in the event of a pandemic.
	During the summer, the chief medical officer alerted all doctors to the guidance and advice that is available on the Department of Health and the HPA websites. This month we will send packs of information, including that already available on the websites, to GPs and other primary care professionals. We are taking a leading role internationally in discussions on avian and pandemic influenza and, in the UK's role as EU presidency, I have made this a major item for our discussion at the EU Health Ministers' informal meeting later this week.
	There is widespread public concern about the risk of pandemic flu. We need accurate information and the media have an important role to play. There is no direct threat to members of the public in the UK from the current outbreaks of avian flu elsewhere in the world. This is a bird disease. There is no reason for people to stop eating poultry. Nevertheless, it is very important for protection against seasonal flu that people aged over 65 and other at-risk groups who are recommended to have vaccination should make sure that they receive their vaccinations as normal.
	We will of course continue to review and step up our preparations so that as far as any country can be fully prepared against the risks of pandemic flu, we in the UK will be prepared.

Patricia Hewitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those questions. We, the chief medical officer and our advisers have been looking at various scenarios, and they of course include a range of factors concerning the number of people who might be infected, and the consequences thereof. We will update them in the updated contingency plan to which I referred in my statement.
	On ordering and stockpiling antivirals, we are one of the best prepared countries in the world. Of course, they will not prevent somebody from getting pandemic flu, but they will undoubtedly help to moderate its severity and therefore to save lives. We already have enough antivirals in stock to treat health care workers who might be affected. Depending on the time at which a pandemic takes place and on its severity, we may need to take further steps to prioritise their availability, but it would be premature to try to take such decisions at this point. Our advisers are looking at this issue, but until we know the nature of the pandemic and who is most at risk from it, it would be foolish to try to make hard and fast decisions about priorities.
	We are of course planning for the real risk of very significant increase in the number of hospital admissions, and we are looking at how best we can deal with that in terms of bed and staff availability. My understanding is that all health authorities and PCTs have plans in place, and we are monitoring and checking those plans. In addition, through the exercises to which I referred—exercises that have been so important in ensuring that the NHS was ready to deal with other eventualities, including 7 July—we will be able to test in a simulation the real readiness of different parts of the service.
	On the availability of a new vaccine tailored to the specific strain of any pandemic flu, our estimate is indeed four to six months. We have been working very closely with the industry in particular to see whether it is possible further to reduce the time scale for identifying the flu strain and then creating and manufacturing the seed stock for the vaccine. Longer-term research is going on, in which the United Kingdom is playing a leading role, to try to find completely different ways of manufacturing vaccine, but I doubt whether they will come to fruition in the very near future. However, they will be enormously important in longer-term protection.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) for asking this question. As he, you and the House know, Mr. Speaker, we hope to have a more substantive opportunity to debate these matters this Wednesday, during Opposition Supply time. But pending that, I will, if I may, ask the Secretary of State a few questions. She says that we are well advanced in the preparation of a stockpile of antiviral drugs. Given that I asked precisely such a question about contingency planning and the stockpiling of drugs on 21 June 2004, and given that the French Government published their preparedness plan on 13 October 2004 and then purchased their stockpile of antiviral drugs, why was it not until I asked further such questions in February of this year that the Government published a plan—on 1 March—and ordered their stockpile, which, as the Secretary of State told us, will not be fully in place until September 2006? As the Secretary of State knows, we do not know when a pandemic flu outbreak may occur.
	The Secretary of State did not answer a question about the use of antiviral drugs. The pandemic contingency plan contemplates very limited use of Tamiflu or other antiviral drugs for post-exposure prophylaxis. Health care workers or the immediate family of someone who contracts pandemic flu should be given the drugs within 24 hours in order to offset their likelihood of developing the infection, having severe symptoms or passing it on to others. Major use of post-exposure prophylaxis could have a significant benefit in containing outbreaks and preventing spread among the population. At the moment, however, the Government are proposing to purchase essentially for treatment rather than prevention. Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government will consider post-exposure prophylaxis more widely and comment on the implications for additional stockpiles of antiviral drugs?
	What does the Secretary of State intend the supply of generic H5N1 vaccine to be used for next spring? Is it to be used for immunisation, which would be perfectly logical for the limited number of workers potentially exposed to birds that could be acquiring avian flu as a result of migration? Although work is in hand on vaccine preparation, have the Government contemplated the option of contracting and tendering for an advance purchase agreement? As the Secretary of State knows, the French Government have sought to acquire 40 million doses of vaccine—predominantly of a targeted pandemic flu vaccine when it can be identified—as part of the process supported by the World Health Organisation of increasing the availability of vaccine manufacture.
	Will the Secretary of State tell us what plans she has for the acquisition of face masks, gloves and other surgical equipment? A UK company recently won a contract to supply a large range of disposable medical products to Australia. The Australian stockpile of gloves, face masks and the like will be in place by December, following a tender in May and June. To the best of my knowledge, our Government have not tendered for any such stockpile, or indeed any supplies beyond their normal acquisition for NHS purposes.
	On the wider question of NHS preparedness, much more needs to be said, and I hope that we will have a chance to say it on Wednesday. However, I shall put my final question for today. Professor David Menon, professor of anaesthesia at Addenbrookes hospital in my constituency, recently published an article in Anaesthesia. The summary states:
	"The UK Influenza Pandemic Contingency Plan does not consider the impact of a pandemic on critical care services . . . Current critical care bed capacity would be unable to cope with the increased demand provided by an influenza pandemic. Proper contingency planning is essential."
	Will the Secretary of State confirm whether Thursday's updated contingency plan will include that sort of essential planning?

Geoffrey Robinson: We do.
	Does she also accept that we understand that there are several different approaches as to how best to handle the matter? However, it would be of great reassurance to the House if she could tell us that no budgetary or financial constraint will be imposed to restrict what she believes and what the expert advice, which we recognise to be unsurpassed in international terms, suggests should be done right now.

Andrew Miller: Because it is impossible to identify the strain at this stage, it will inevitably be some months before it is possible to manufacture a vaccine. Indeed, it is conceivable that the virus will mutate as it spreads around the world—if that happens—thereby delaying the manufacturing process. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Europe has sufficient manufacturing capacity to meet the needs? On seasonal flu, will she state clearly and unambiguously that people in the at-risk groups should go and get their jab soon, as their GP will invite them to do?

Mike Hancock: Will the Secretary of State publish the evidence that she has to support her statement that eating contaminated chicken, providing that it is well cooked, presents no threat to health?

Patricia Hewitt: I asked that very question of our chief medical officer and I am assured by our experts that there are adequate supplies available to GPs to ensure that anyone who is at risk and who therefore should have the vaccination can do so. However, if my hon. Friend lets me have further details of the difficulty that he encountered, I shall pursue the matter further.

Patricia Hewitt: We have already run this year's information campaign on seasonal flu earlier this month. We are using Department of Health and other agency websites to disseminate a great deal of accurate information about the three different issues—seasonal flu, avian flu and potential pandemic flu. We shall continue to broadcast that information as much as we can, especially through the briefings that the chief medical officer and other experts give to the media and, through the media, to the public. On Thursday, when we publish the updated pandemic contingency plan, we shall also make available to GPs communication materials to go directly into their surgeries.

Lembit �pik: From the way that the new clause is framed, it is not clear to me that that is the intention. The vagueness in the drafting could cause problems, but I am grateful for the clarification.

Lembit �pik: I thought of little else during the weekend. If I had been able to call the hon. Gentleman on Friday, I might have enjoyed my Saturday and Sunday more, but now I am relieved and Wales will breathe a sigh of relief after his remarks.
	I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which we discussed during the Bill's earlier stages, but I am worried about the consequences of accepting new clause 1 as it stands. We all agree that there have been terrible problems with public transport in Wales, as in the United Kingdom. I agree that the Labour Administration in Wales has not done much to resolve the legion problems created previously by the Conservative Government. We have a serious transport problem caused by two Governments of different colours.
	The new clause is really about cross-border provision and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Leominster, because it would be inconceivable for significant investment decisions to be made without pretty much automatic recourse to cross-border discussion. Any significant investment will necessarily involve a degree of negotiation between the Welsh Assembly and the Administration in Westminster, because a clear understanding of the financial jurisdiction of those two Administrations would have to be ironed out. That could not take place unless one had a fairly sophisticated and high-level strategic discussion beforehand.
	Another reason why I am not as worried as the hon. Gentleman is that there are plenty of precedents for this in other aspects of cross-border relations. All the work that we have done to deal with flooding in mid-Wales and with the considerable problems that we have with health has required a high level of cross-border discussion.
	I have previously highlighted the risks involved in framing legislation on the basis of the current political environment. The hon. Gentleman gave his views about the individuals who are currently in charge in Wales. I ask him to look forward to another occasion where the strains might be even greater. Let us say that from 2009 to 2050 there is a benign Administration led by the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly and also in Westminster.

Lembit �pik: Make it 80 years, then. Let us say that, after that time, there is a sharp divide between an Administration of one colour in the Assembly and one of another colour in Westminster, who would nevertheless have to negotiate about the matters that I mentioned. Subsection (2) of the new clause would be a green light to a significant division whereby the process of consultation could be used to hold up recommendations and decisions made by the Welsh Assembly. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I am worried that his new clause could increase the likelihood of mischief on a future occasion where two Administrations from two parties seek to obstruct the progress of the other.

Nick Ainger: The hon. Gentleman has now raised a different matter. The Bill is clear that, in the case of any additional service that passed through England as a result of a policy that the Welsh Assembly developed, the Assembly would fund the part of the service that was in Wales. However, the fact that the route continued into England and possibly returned back into Wales a possibility on the borderwould not place a requirement on the Department for Transport or a local authority to fund that part of the service. Clearly, such a service depends on the support of the Assembly. Clause 7 deals with that. We are considering services that do not currently exist and that local authorities are not willing to support, for whatever reason, but for which there may be a strategic need, identified by the Assembly. The Assembly would therefore fund them. It would not expect any other authority in Wales or in England or the Department for Transport to contribute to that service. I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman and I therefore ask him to withdraw the new clause.

Bill Wiggin: I echo the Minister's kind comments about the Chairman of the Select Committee, and indeed the Chairman of the Standing Committee. Their help and hard work were greatly appreciated.
	I think we are all familiar with the problems and issues that have been present throughout the scrutiny of our proposals. As the Minister said in Committee, the Bill is not about more powers for the Assembly, but about responsibilities for developing policies and strategies for the benefit of transport in Wales. However, the Assembly's responsibility to implement the policies as well is just one of the aspects that have created problems that are still present. We should all like to see positive changes in the delivery of transport services in Wales, and I am sure that everyone here hopes that the Bill will achieve them. Yet since the outset we have had a number of concerns, which remain unsolved to an extent. They were addressed in Committee, but we must be sure that the Government are genuinely committed to living up to the assurances they have given.
	In Committee, the Minister admitted that
	There may well be severe problems developing policies within Wales.
	If that is what the representative of the Government feels about the Bill's prospects, it is not really surprising that we too have our doubts.
	In Committee we debated, at some length, the finer details of developing the Wales transport strategy. I suggested that perhaps the Bill should require the Assembly to consult certain bodies as a matter of course. We were reassured about our desire to see all groups with an interest in transport developments, from local businesses to disabled people's charities, being offered a genuine say in changes.
	The Welsh Assembly's previous tendency to consult similar bodies on issues each time, and the criticism voiced about failings in the Assembly's Committee system to deal properly with scrutiny, mean that we shall watch the development of that aspect carefully. We shall have to ensure that, as we were promised in Committee, the Assembly really does consult as many relevant organisations as possible, including those more likely to give unfavourable responses when new policies and developments are considered.
	The Minister also assured us that when the Wales transport strategy was being developed, cross-border issues would be taken fully into account. I think that he did that in his closing statements. I am grateful to him for taking on board the points that I asked him to consider, and for the way in which he responded.
	We have considered the cross-border issue consistently. In Committee, we were assured that the Government would accept responsibility for negotiating on behalf of English counties, and that any English local authority facing problems as a result of the strategy developed by the Assembly could make representations to a Minister such as the Secretary of State for Transport. We will be watching closely to ensure that the reasonable procedure that the Minister outlined for consultation and adjudication in the event of an impasse is followed.
	We were also assured that the Assembly would work with organisations that span the border, such as the many train companies that operate throughout England and Wales. In Committee we were promised
	a great deal of discussion
	with organisations contributing to the network in Wales that are based outside Wales. I look forward to seeing the results of that, too.
	During Committee, I stressed the need for local transport plans to be monitored to ensure that they were produced in reasonable time and stressed that, as soon as practicable, the wording in the Bill, provides a closely monitored and sensible time limit. We were assured that no penalties were necessary to ensure the timely production of local transport plans and that local authorities must do as the Assembly says if it issues a direction regarding those plans. I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that and I hope that that will always prove to be the case.
	We will also watch with interest to ensure that joint transport authorities are genuinely appropriately funded, neither forcing more responsibilities onto local authorities without suitable funds, nor becoming another example of waste and inept usage of Welsh taxpayers' hard-earned money. Despite assurances that the results of local authorities working together will be to produce savings rather than more costs, we must watch closely the impact of running a joint transport authority, which, sadly, is assumed will cost approximately 1 million per annum, in addition to 100,000 to 200,000 in setting-up costs. The potential for the creation of costly administration and support teams, new quangos and more bureaucracy must be held in check. Financial controls operating in the Assembly must work to ensure probity when committing public funds and to ensure that those funds are appropriate and well placed. Indeed, I was grateful for the Minister's comments on that.
	In Committee, we were informed that joint transport authorities cannot cross the border, but local authorities can be instructed to consult on matters with JTAs. The Minister mentioned that I would be pleased about that. I remain absolutely impartial. Of course, I want what is best for Wales but, obviously, if the JTAs are working particularly well, they are something that we would like to see in operation across the border, too. We must be certain to check that they are as good as we hope they will be when cross-border issues come into play.
	We must also watch the practices of the public transport users committee for Wales, particularly on cross-border issues. During Committee, the Minister said that if those who live outside Wales have an issue relating to transport he
	would have thought that the committee would take up any representation that they made. [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 28 June 2005, c. 13, 8, 44.]
	That does not seem to be a particularly definite or optimistic view on the ability of those who use Welsh transport to have a voice. However, I look forward to seeing a truly effective and representative committee of users of Welsh transport. I am sure that we will all keep a watchful eye on anything untoward should it occur.
	We have debated in great detail the fact that the Bill gives the Assembly the ability to provide financial assistance only to services or facilities that would not exist without its help. We believe that the Assembly should be afforded the opportunity to help those services that can exist unaided even further. In certain cases, the Assembly should be given greater freedom to spend its money on whatever it believes to be most beneficial recipient.
	Perhaps that opportunity is most pertinent to aviation in Wales. I am sure that the Minister will remember that I said that I remain open-minded on the issue. Of course, it is advantageous to the Assembly to have the ability to fund air transport if it so desires, and those developments could have economic advantages for Wales, although that is far from proven. Obviously, the benefits to the Welsh economy must be considered.

Bill Wiggin: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely adamant about his admiration for air transport. We are all worried about whether the Assembly is spending its money in the most effective way for the people of Wales. We would like the Assembly to have the flexibility to help services that could exist but might need aid, which might be a better use of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his desire to see flying in Wales, and he goes gliding at the weekend as well. No one could be more committed to gravity than he.
	The benefits to the Welsh economy must be considered, and we need definite answers as to how many people would use and benefit from Welsh air transport and on the comparative benefits of developing better road and rail services. The Assembly consultation document on intra-Wales scheduled air services suggested that a maximum of 80 direct jobs and 120 indirect jobs would result from such provision. I am not yet convinced that the estimated 800,000 required to subsidise air transport in year one and the 400,000 to upgrade facilities at Valley airport could not be better spent elsewhere. The need for subsidies to begin air transport services in the first place raises the issue of whether these services would be workable in the long term.
	In the first quarter of this year, the number of passengers using Cardiff international airport slumped by 19 per cent. and it is possible that only 400 passengers a week might use flights within Wales. We must be sure to keep an extremely watchful eye on these developments and make sure that if subsidised services demonstrably fail, they do not turn into an expensive failure for Wales.
	Several more important issues must be considered and monitored if and when the expansion of air travel occurs. We know that short-haul flights are particularly damaging to the environment. By 2050, aircraft will be one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gases. Indeed, greenhouse gases from aircraft rose by almost 90 per cent. between 1990 and 2003. In Wales, carbon dioxide emissions have risen from their 1990 levels, making a great contribution as the Government, sadly, head toward missing their carbon dioxide emission targets. With the Government meant to be tackling climate change so seriously, there seems to be something of a contradiction in condoning a further increase in air transport in the UK, especially when the need for it or the number of those who favour it is far from proven.
	The use of money on such a clearly unsustainable form of transport must continue to be monitored and scrutinised very carefully, especially when the Government are putting so little funding and effort into research towards development for cleaner fuels for air transport.
	During the progress of the Bill, we have sought to test the Government's intentions and have received many valuable assurances. I am sure that we are all looking forward to seeing those put into practice. We have drawn attention to the various anomalies and problems present in the Bill and I still have some doubts about several aspects. But I hope that the Act truly creates safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services throughout Wales and look forward to seeing its positive effects making a real difference for the people of Wales.

John Smith: I rise to speak briefly in support of the Third Reading of the Bill, which I warmly welcome. I congratulate all those involved in guiding the Bill through the House.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I am a big supporter of Cardiff international airport. I should like to place on record that despite the reduction in services experienced earlier this year, Cardiff remains the fastest growing regional airport in the UK and is on target to reach the Aviation White Paper's target of a quadrupling of throughput of passengers by 2020.

John Smith: I do not want to get involved in a childish tit-for-tat on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we have an important piece of legislation before us. I am not getting into the business of knocking anyone; rather, I am in the business of providing Wales with a transport network that is the envy of the world. A network that integrates our air service would provide exactly that, because there is no example in the world of a successful economy generating and regenerating itself without a first-class international airport providing scheduled business flights throughout the world. That is exactly what we all should be striving for in respect of Cardiff international airport.
	On both sides of the House, we should be campaigning for a direct rail link, just as we should be striving for a direct dual carriageway link to the M4 corridor, which would get us into the UK road networks. However, that is going to take years, if not decades, and the problem is that we cannot stand still on the issue.
	I hate to use the example againthere is always a danger of highlighting the problems at Cardiff international airport, when it is the fastest-growing regional airport in the UKbut it was Digby Jones as director-general of the CBI who described the existing road from the M4 corridor to the Cardiff international airport as the only such airport road in the world on which one could get stuck behind a milk float for 9 miles.

Nigel Evans: I am devastated by the news that the hon. Gentleman has brought us about Catherine Zeta Jones. Perhaps she could ask her husband to fund the project?

John Smith: My understanding is that the Bill strengthens the powers of the Welsh Assembly Government to direct local authorities and other providers of transport strategies and transport provision. That is exactly the point. We have a ridiculous situation in which the Welsh Assembly Government have put forward an interim measure to help alleviate the problem of getting to Cardiff International airport and the local authority has dumped plans to upgrade the existing road, the A4050, the north-east access to Barry. That is not only vital to the future development of the airport but vital to the future development of Barry town. Barry has been left out of the transport loop by the proposals.

Lembit �pik: My very next words were to have been, and that is why the Third Reading of this Bill is so important to air transport in Wales. I apologise for digressing, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I get very excited about aircraft. The brief opportunity to sit down has calmed my spirit.
	Returning to the specifics of Wales, I say to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) that, in implementing the Bill, we have to make an informed assessment of what is feasible for air transport in the medium term. That ties into something that I need to clarify about my view of how the opportunity to support and fund regional aviation in Wales should be approached. I would be very resistant about taking the opportunity provided in the Bill to have an indefinite subsidy for aviation services. Although I can understand, at a push, that people even more fanatical than I might argue for that, it is my judgment that the best investment that this Bill provides is pump-priming. At Welshpool airport, the infrastructure is being built; nevertheless it would not be prudent for the Welsh Assembly to end up in an open-ended commitment to subsidise air transport that would necessarily be the domain primarily of business customers and perhaps a few wealthy private travellers. I agree with those who think that we must not place an enormous strain on Welsh expenditure by entering into something that we do not understand. The good news is that the Bill does not require that to happen, but does require some sensible investment.
	I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith): we have a hub airport in the form of Cardiff. Although we have to think about the macro-environmental effects of aviation overall, that is no reason hold Cardiff back. All of air transport must start living up to its environmental responsibilities. In that context, we should all agree that if Wales is to prosper and be an attractive centre of investment and tourism, we have to ensure that Cardiff international airport is well connected internationally, as well as internally in terms of land transport. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments in that respect.
	Those who question the benefit of aviation should remember that all the parties have proved its advantage. All the party leaders have been seen flying about the country. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was seen in his small helicopter, cruelly referred to by some of my colleagues as the batmobile. That shows that everyone who wants to travel quickly and can afford it tends to use aviation.
	Although the Bill provides a good opportunity to discuss the infrastructure developments needed for Wales to establish its own regional air network, other matters, not directly related to the Bill, need to be considered. There are questions, which I shall not go into in great detail, about the use of American-registered aircraft in Wales and the UK as a whole, and the instrument rating and other qualifications that are required in the UK compared with the United States. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), has agreed to meet me and MPs from other parties to discuss those issues. I am optimistic that that will smooth the way to using the opportunities created by the Bill to the full.
	I hope that the scepticism that I have heard from the hon. Member for Leominster and others does not suggest that they oppose the Airbus developments in Hawarden. The A380 is the single most significant civil airliner being constructed in the world today and I am proud of the fact that that development is taking place in north Wales. I strongly support the environmental benefits that it will bring in terms of reducing emissions while carrying the same number of passengers as other aircraft.

Lembit �pik: The hon. Gentleman probably knows a little more about that service than I do. However, once the flow lines are in place, demand tends to follow. For so long, there has been under-investment in the British rail network and its services have been slashed. As a result, people have become accustomed to making journeys in a different way. I am encouraged that the Bill gives the Welsh Assembly the opportunity to make courageous decisions of the sort that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has described.
	On a local level, the more integrated approach that the Bill encourages and advocates is both welcome and necessary. Our vision should be of a co-ordinated network where bus and rail services complement rather than compete with one another, and where local authorities work together to increase efficiency and ease the burden of bureaucracy.
	An important omission in the Bill is that of accessibility. A report entitled Mind the Gap, produced by DisabilityLeonard Cheshirehighlighted that many disabled people still experienced enormous problems accessing public transport. For example, nearly half of all the disabled people surveyed had found their choice of jobs restricted as a result of lack of accessibility to the transport that they needed to get to that employment. Nearly a quarter of those people had had to turn down a job offered because of a lack of accessible transport.
	Improving the accessibility of transport for disabled people means more than free bus passes. They must be able to get on and off the transport that is available to them. If there are only a few trains a day, they need to be able to board those trains. More progress is needed in that area. One omissionI criticise myself in this instanceis that we did not think sufficiently through disability discrimination legislation and its implications for Welsh transport. I hope that the Welsh Assembly will make good what we omitted.
	The Bill provides the framework to take Welsh transport forward. The hope is that the government in Cardiff succeed where successive Westminster Governments have failed. Westminster Governments have shown themselves incapable of delivering a reliable and affordable public transport service. It is not integrated and it is not working well. The Assembly has the capacity to be more responsive to Welsh needs and to make the rail, bus and air system in Wales work. That system is not working so well in Britain. The Liberal Democrats have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these matters. I hope that we shall be successful in convincing the doubting Conservatives of the benefits of a limited air network in Wales, and that there can be optimism that the Assembly will run with the powers that the Bill confers.

Si�n James: I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill's Third Reading. We know that transport to, from and within Wales it is extremely important. We must ensure that we are never at the end of the line in any way, shape or form. We must be at the forefront of all forms of transport and ensure that they are of the highest quality for the citizens of Wales.
	The coherent set of powers that the Bill will provide for us will ensure a positive future. It will be a future where all forms of transport can become integrated. That will enable us to achieve many of the things that we all want from our rail passenger, bus transport and air services. We want sustainability; we want to achieve modal shift; and we want to get people back into using public transport. We want to make sure that more freight uses various forms of freight transport. We must make sure that we compete not only in Wales but in the UK and Europe. We therefore need consistent services, and we must achieve the best transport services possible.
	Those opportunities are much needed in Wales. The Bill makes provision for joint transport authorities and adopts a regional approach. People can therefore identify what is required locally to meet their daily needs. The National Assembly for Wales will provide a flexible public transport service that will plug the gaps, and that will depend on joint working on local transport plans.

David Jones: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I broadly welcome the Bill, but I have concerns about its implementation in the hands of the Welsh Assembly which, in the years since its inception, has shown itself to be an increasingly acquisitive and centralising body.
	I have two primary concerns about the Bill. First, clause 5 provides for the establishment of joint transport authorities. The power to establish such authorities is permissive, not mandatory. The Minister was at pains on Second Reading to stress that the Assembly will not be obliged to implement the power conferred by the clause. However, once it is conferred, the Assembly may be tempted to exercise it as a matter of course, which would clearly be wrong. Local authorities throughout Wales are already working in collaboration through consortiums such as Taith in north Wales and SWWITCH in the south-west. The consortiums are mostly working effectively, so it would be regrettable if the Assembly usurped their functions without very good reason indeed.

Hywel Williams: Far be it for me to defend the Minister or anyone else but, if memory serves, I seem to recall that those powers are to be used when local voluntary arrangements have broken down or are not working satisfactorily rather than being something that the Welsh Assembly would use as a matter of course.

David Jones: That is not what the clause provides for. The power exists, and that might prove too much of a temptation for the Assembly. I mentioned my reservations on Second Reading, and I remain concerned that clause 10 contains powers for the joint transport authorities to impose levies on local authorities. If those are imposed, they will filter through to council tax payers in the form of additional council tax. The establishment of a joint transport authority should be a last resort, and only if the Assembly is satisfied that without it, it would not be possible to discharge the general transport duty set out in clause 1. I hope the Assembly will not do that without proper consultation and serious consideration of the views of local authorities and all other proper consultees.
	My second major concern relates to clause 11, which provides for financial assistance for air transport services starting or ending at airports in Wales. We have heard much about that this evening. It is clear from the debates on Second Reading and in Standing Committee, as well as the debate that has developed in the National Assembly, that the thrust of the clause is to help promote an intra-Wales air service, primarily between north and south Wales. That would be an expensive exercise and I must express severe reservations about it.
	There has been much discussion about the possibility of developing part of RAF Valley for commercial aviation services. The concern is that Valley is situated in one of the least populous areas of Wales, remote from large or even middle-sized centres of population. That is obviously a sensible place to locate a military airbase. I understand that at one time Valley had the second highest number of air movements in the whole of the UK, but it is not the logical place to site a commercial airport.
	Despite what the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit pik) says, the sad truth is that north-south air services have a history of failure, as I mentioned in my intervention on him. The Air Wales Liverpool-to-Cardiff service was launched amid much fanfare towards the end of 2003, and six weeks later it shut down, blaming a lower than average take-up rate.

Lembit �pik: Perhaps we are approaching consensus. If a business case can be made for investment in the infrastructure of an airport that would benefit a part of Wales, would the hon. Gentleman be sympathetic to that? Does he acknowledge that that is exactly what we have done in our analysis with regard to Welshpool airport, where a six-figure sum has been invested in the belief that sufficient economic benefit will accrue to the area to justify the expense?

Mark Tami: I am somewhat confused as to the hon. Gentleman's view of speed cameras. I saw a grimace on the faces of his colleagues when he mentioned them. Is he in favour of them or against them?

Jeremy Browne: I have prepared a four-hour speech for the occasion and I am delighted to be able to deliver it in full to the Minister and everyone else who chooses to stay for the duration.
	On a more serious note, I am delighted to have secured a debate on the important issue of policing in Somerset. I start by paying tribute to the police in the county, and particularly to the chief superintendent of the basic command unit for my area, John Snell, and his team, with whom I have spent many hours on patrol in both Taunton and Wellingtonthe second town in my constituencyand also in the more rural communities. I have been impressed by their work and their commitment to their tasks.
	Many indicators of crime have fallen in Somerset in recent years. No doubt the Minister will give some of the statistics when he responds, but let me say, in a spirit of consensus and magnanimity, that I welcome many of the Government's initiatives on crime reduction. I do not want to talk entirely negatively about what the Government have done. I have a lot of time for what the Prime Minister calls the respect agenda: I think that it accords with many people's neighbourhood concerns. I have been impressed by the whole initiative of police community support officers and the role that they can play in areas such as mine, and I am keen to see their numbers increased. I can vouch for the fact that, as long as they are an additional resource rather than a substitute for the regular police, they will make a considerable contribution to the communities that I represent and to others further afield.
	The purpose of this debate is to take a slightly wider look at the situation in Somerset and across the Avon and Somerset force and, more specifically, to look at the changes in police structures in England and Wales. As all Members know, there are currently 43 police forces covering England and Wales, but the Government's drive is towards bigger regional police forces. On 19 September, responding to the report from Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, the Home Secretary said that we needed bigger forces, possibly even as big as regional forces, because of the
	modern threats we face today.
	He went on to identify three modern threats that are driving the agenda towards bigger and bigger police forces:
	terrorism, international drug and people traffickers, and financial crime gangs.
	Those are the driving forces determining police structures across England and Wales.
	On 16 September, Denis O'Connor of the HMIC had said in his report that a future policing environment would be characterised by
	widespread enterprising organised criminality, proliferating international terrorism and domestic extremism.
	The conclusion that he drew from that new threatthe modern threat described by the Home Secretarywas that
	below a certain size there simply is not a sufficient critical mass to provide the necessary sustainable level of protective services that the 21st century increasingly demands.
	He concluded that at least 4,000 officers were needed to respond to the so-called modern threats. According to the latest statistics relating to the 43 forces in England and Wales, only seven meet that criterion, although Avon and Somerset, the area that I represent, comes close with more than 3,000 officers.
	The argument throughout, both from the inspector in his formal report and from the Home Secretary in his response, is that bigger is better in policing in England and Wales. The logical conclusion is that we will move towards forces that are as big as regional police forces. There is even a riskI suppose some would regard it in those termsof going further and having a national police force. Rick Naylor from the Police Superintendents Association said that going down to 30 forces was not sufficient and added
	We want to see a single national police force.
	There is an agenda of greater centralisation and a reduction in police forces.
	The problem for people in the part of Somerset that I represent is that the Government seem to be entirely driven by an urban-centric model for policing. Ministers are based most of the week in London. Most Home Office Ministers represent constituencies in big urban conurbations, including the Minister who is present today. Home Office advisers are predominantly based in London. The leading police officers tend to be the chief constables of the big urban metropolitan police forces. The drive from the Home Office and the Government is towards seeing policing through urban perspectives.
	What the Government describe as the modern threatsterrorism, people trafficking, drug smugglingare, of course, important; I do not diminish the importance of those subjects. They would occupy anyone who was Home Secretary, or a Minister in the Home Office, but they are urban considerations. They are the considerations predominantly of people in London, Manchester, Birmingham and even Bristol, the other part of the area that I represent. However, they are notthis is my essential pointthe key priorities of people living in Somerset.
	Three issues are of particular concern to people in the area that I represent. As I say, terrorism is not among them, important though that is. The first is antisocial behaviour. People want more to be done about vandalism, graffiti, late night noise and unruly children in their estates. That is not just a big city issue. It is as much a medium and small town issue; it is even a village issue.
	The second issue is binge drinking and all its associated problems. A good number of middle-aged people whom I have met in Taunton, which is after all the county town for Somerset, have said, I am not going into Taunton after seven or eight o'clock in the evening. During the day, it is thronging with people of all ages but in the evening the streets clear and fill up again at seven or eight. I am 35 and, if I go out for a drink in Taunton town centre, I am often the oldest person in the town centre at that time. That is a big problem to do with quality of life. It may sometimes be a perception problem rather than a reality problem. None the less, it is a big priority for people in my area.
	The third issue is visible community policing. Particularly in rural areas, people want to see police on the beat, on foot or on a bike. That is why community support officers are making a genuine contribution.
	Those are the concerns of people in Somerset. They are not the ones that the Home Secretary lists: terrorism, international drug and people traffickers and financial crime gangs. We are fortunate that we do not suffer as much from those problems as people in big cities do, but those are the things that are driving the Home Office agenda. It is becoming a bigger, more remote and less accountable agenda of bigger, more remote and less accountable police forces.
	Like so many of the Government's arrangements, the drive is towards heavily centralised services. When the Home Office looks at priorities for policing and at setting targets for police officers to meet, it tends to focus on burglary, car crime, street crime or robbery. All those are laudable targets but, again, they are relevant most to urban areas. In Somerset, in a typical week, there are perhaps three or four robberies. Robbery is an unusual crime in an area such as Somerset. In Bristol, there are about 50 robberies a week. I make the point because any police officer in a senior position looking to meet Government targets and to respond to the approach laid down for him or her by the Home Office will inevitably target their resources where they can have the biggest impact on those targets, and on those crimes that are designated as being most important by Ministers in cities making those decisions. Rural communities such as Somerset have a different agenda and a different set-up. I have talked about the areas of greatest concern to people in my area, but there are obviously less densely populated communities in Somerset than in the big cities and the population is generally older. There is a greater emphasis on reducing the fear of crime and on quality-of-life issues. There are fewer terrible crimes, but they are harder to measure and different from the urban agenda.
	It is a common misconception that the police deal predominantly with crime. That sounds like a strange statement to make, but my understanding is that my local police spend as little as 20 per cent. of their time directly dealing with crime. So much of their time is spent on traffic accidents, missing persons, floods, trees falling, animals escaping on to roads or, as happened on Saturday, a float catching fire at Taunton carnival. Rural communities see the police essentially as an additional resource and emergency service. That might mean making sure that an older person has the food they need if it snows heavily; it might mean taking home a 14-year-old girl who has had an argument with her boyfriend.
	Those are not necessarily the indicators that come out of the Home Office, which tends to see crime in very urban forms, but they are important to people living in rural communities such as Somerset. This agenda is particularly pertinent because, over the last three years, people in Somerset have paid more and more for their policing services. The police precept in Somerset, the third part of the council tax bill, has gone up by more than 50 per cent. in the last three years, which by any standards is an enormous increase. People are entitled to see that money being spent on the crime priorities in their community.
	There is considerable unease in Somerset about the current Avon and Somerset force, which merges the predominantly rural county of Somerset with the biggest city in the region, Bristol. When people call Taunton police station with a problem, they get put through to an operator on the outskirts of Bristol. I myself rang Taunton police station to apologise for being 10 or 15 minutes late for a meeting but was unable to persuade the person on the switchboard 50 miles away, who was not aware of the circumstances of the police station, to put me through. Now, Taunton police station is closing at night, which is not a reflection of the priorities of my area.
	We have what is essentially an artificial construct: a big city, Bristol, sharing a police force with Somerset. There is a case for giving Somerset its own police force that can deal with the priorities of the people living in the county, but I accept that that is not where the debate stands. The move of the Government is not towards more police forces, but fewer. If Somerset were to be merged with another area and we were to start from scratch, there is a strong case for it being amalgamated with Dorset, a similar, largely rural county with some medium-sized towns, rather than a big city such as Bristol.
	We can have such discussions, but I am certain that what is not in Somerset's interests is a huge, monolithic regional police construct, designed to fight and combat urban crime. I want to see policing in my area that is more responsive, more accountable and less remote.

Jeremy Browne: Real improvements have been made in tackling crime in Somerset. I have been impressed by the calibre of the police officers in my area, and I am sure that the same is true of the Yeovil area. I do not start from the assumption that everything is going wrong; what I want to ensure is that things continue to go right. My fear is that, if our approach to crime is driven by the urban model of a big city such as Bristolor, worse still, by that of a regional force in, say, Swindonwe will fail to reflect the concerns of people on the ground in Somerset. After all, why should Somerset's policing priorities be driven by Home Office targets set in London? Why should the Government shape our police force to address urban crime priorities at the expense of rural ones? Why should policing in Somerset be directed from a big city remote from the population of the area that I represent, instead of by that area itself?
	The people best placed to determine Somerset's policing priorities are the people of Somerset. They include Somerset's police and its directly elected politicians, and, most of all, its taxpayers, who are paying far more than ever before for their policing. The Government's agenda is based on the belief that bigger is betteran approach that we see throughout the delivery of public services. But in policing, such an approach leads to too much emphasis on urban crime and to services that are too remote. The people of Somerset deserve to have their police taxes spent on their policing priorities. They tell me that they want strong community policing that is accountable, responsive and relevant to local needs.

David Heath: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) on securing his first Adjournment debate. It is on what I consider, for obvious reasons, an extremely important subject, and the points that he made were extremely apposite not only to his constituency, but to mine and to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws).
	My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton pointed out that Avon and Somerset is in some ways a strange construct. I know of no other police authority area that goes from one extreme to the other within its boundaries. Ours goes from the extremes of some ultimate inner-city areasSt. Paul's, in Bristol, for instanceto the wild and woolly parts of Exmoor, in his constituency, and parts of the levels, in my constituency. The latter are the absolute antithesis of inner-city Bristol, which is itself a major crime city, as we recognise.
	I have perhaps been involved with this issue for too long not to point out that the difficulty for any chief constable is that policing a conurbation such as Bristol is a real issue. Bristol is a major motor for crime not just within the confines of the city, but across the wider area. The drugs trade, which in Bristol and the neighbouring cities is linked to organised crime, is a major factor that any chief constable has to address. I understand perfectly well that petty and smaller-scale crime in Somerset is often fought on the streets of inner-city Bristol by dealing with the prevalence of the illegal drug tradethe motor for such crimewhich is responsible for thefts and burglaries outside the city area.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton eloquently pointed out, although people who live in the smaller towns in Somersetand particularly in the rural areasaccept, as I do, the significance of that issue, they also want a minimum level of policing of their own areas. It seems to themsometimes accurately and sometimes notthat there is a flight of criminal justice system resources away from rural areas and towards the cities, and that that flight puts them at a disadvantage.
	I have spoken on Home Office matters on my party's behalf for some time, so I have been involved in the national debate on this issue. I have taken the viewit is also my party's viewthat we have reached the point where we should recognise that there is a level of crime, international and national, that needs to be dealt with using resources that go beyond the area of an individual force. We would have liked the Serious Organised Crime Agency to have wider powers than are currently envisaged to deal with serious crime across the piece, so that chief constables can focus their attentions on local crime and on keeping the peace in rural areas and small towns, which is an important part of policing that is not often mentioned. I understand exactly the point made by my hon. Friend about the palpable similarities between Somerset and Dorset in that respect. Had we been starting with a blank piece of paper, we might have arrived at a much better construct for policing. We do not start from that, however, and I also agree that I do not want the police to be distracted by large-scale reorganisationother than perhaps in relation to dealing with national and international crime in a different wayfrom the things that they are beginning to address properly in our area.
	I believe, and always have done, that the basic command unit is the most important element of policing. I have established, I hope, very good relations with Chief Superintendent Andy Marsh, based in Yeovil, who commands the district covering my constituency. I can see that the local focus that he and his colleagues provide is of immense importance.
	While the BCU is the basic building block of policing, for it to work effectively, we need to consider global numbers of police officers. Many years ago, when I was chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authorityI say this on every occasion that we discuss policing, but I will not stop saying itI went every year up to London, in the company of the then chief constable, David Shattock, to see the then Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), to say that we needed 200 to 300 more officers, and to be told that we could have none. We had a clear deficiency in manpower. My criticism of the Labour Government was that it took them a long time to react to that deficiency in Home Office spending and that they stuck for a long period to the previous Government's budgetary arrangements for policing. Over the past couple of years, that has changed, and I welcome it. We are seeing a few extra officers, but that is probably not equal to the public's demands to see many extra officers on their streets, as they imagine there are elsewhere.
	The other welcome element is the introduction of police community support officers, which we advocated some time ago, and we agree with the Government on their important role, while emphasising yet again that they must not be a substitute for the properly trained police officer in patrolling our streets. They are a supplement, not a replacement. My constituency has had several PCSOs, whom I welcome and have worked with, and they provide welcome reassurance to the public through a uniformed presence on the streets, but there is a limit to what they can do.
	Let me give the Minister an example. I had my advice surgery in Martock in my constituency on Saturday and, before I had even got into the market house in Martock, I was shown the damage that had been done the previous nightnot for the first but the umpteenth timeto what is called the pinnacle in Martock and the public conveniences there. Inevitably, as Martock is not a big place, a small group of antisocial youngsters who are determined to make their mark on the village are responsible. The PCSOs have been engaged and constructive, but as local people point out, there is a limit to what they can do if they do not have the support and back-up of a community beat officer working with them to make their presence felt in the village, as they do not have powers of arrest. All that they can do is talk to the miscreants. We need both elements: visible presence, along with the back-up of omnicompetent constables carrying out their proper role. What worries me is that we do not always have both those elements.
	I have argued for a long time that we must address what I call intelligent patrolensuring that police officers are seen in the right place at the right time in order to have the requisite deterrent effect. That sometimes means pub chucking out time, though if the Government have their way, that is going to be a rather extended process in some of our communities. Pensions day activity is another area, which may also be disappearing under Government proposals. We need to deal with the needs of the community and ensure that they are policed in the right place at the right time.
	We must also reduce the number of abstractions from local policing to force or national duties so that people can be assured that when they are told that they have a community beat officer team, that team stays working in their area and does not disappear somewhere elseto Bristol airport, perhaps, if there is a terrorist threat a few months later. That is unacceptable to the people I represent in Somerset. We must also take steps to ensure that when we have enough police officerswe are not there yetthey are used in the most effective way. Sometimes, that means keeping them on the patch and ensuring that they have the facilities to do their job properly in rural areas.
	I have argued for many years about the police cells in Frome, which are perfectly proper police cells, but are not used because the necessary custody suite officers are not available. The consequence is that if a police officer makes an arrest in Frome on a Friday or Saturday night, they have to travel up to Bath or down to Yeovil to put the culprits in a cell. That amounts to a minimum of three quarters of a mile in either direction, so the officer is off the street for at least one and a half hours. A conscientious officer will often take the view that the arrest should not be made because he believes that losing a minimum of an hour and a half, plus the time necessary for booking in the offender, is irresponsible, resulting in inadequate cover for the area.
	Local magistrates courts are still under threat of closure and nothing we say to the Department for Constitutional Affairs seems to remove that threat. It is another problem that takes police officers out of their areas to accompany prisoners and provide evidence. Such demands take officers out of local communities, meaning that they cannot do their jobs properly.
	I had a useful meeting with our new chief constable, Colin Port and was impressed by what he told me. He recognised immediately that Avon and Somerset force did not perform as well as he would like it to. He also recognised the problems that can result from one bad contactperhaps when a member of the public tries to report a crime or support their local police. If people provide information to the police and no one gets back to them or if they have reported a crime, police are promised for the next day but not arrive and no explanation is given, that can result in serious loss of confidence in the police. That is likely to undermine not only that person's confidence, but that of everyone else he talks to in the following week or so. We need to deal with that serious problem.
	We need more officers in Avon and Somerset. We need them to be more locally based and we need them to perform in ways that are conducive to encouraging confidence among the local community. We need them to use their skills and powers in the most effective and efficient way, and we need the whole process of criminal justice in rural areas to be brought closer to the individual and to be seen to be effective. I fear that we are not yet there at the moment.

Paul Goggins: I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) on securing this important debate, and he has raised a number of important questions. A number of his hon. Friends were also able to participate, and I was grateful for the constructive way in which they approached the issues.
	The hon. Gentleman predicted that I would rehearse a number of impressive statistics about police numbers and crime falling in his area, and I shall not disappoint him. Those details are important, but I shall first reassure him, I hope, about the central theme of his and his constituents' concerns. He said three issues would concern his constituents above all othersantisocial behaviour, binge drinking and the need for visible policing. As he pointed out, I represent an urban constituency, but if I went out and about, as I do, and asked my constituents for their three issues of concern, many would name the same three. The context is different, and we need to understand the difference between policing a rural and an urban community, but many themes and concerns are broadly similar. I hope that that is of some reassurance to the hon. Gentleman, although I have no doubt not fully persuaded him of the merits of the Home Office team, which perhaps has slightly more experience in urban areas. I assure him that we understand the issues.
	Overall, Avon and Somerset police has made significant progress over the past 12 months and continues to improve performance, largely owing to the hard work and professionalism of the officers and staff. Overall, crime is down 5 per cent. compared with the same period last year. Burglaries are down 14 per cent., and vehicle crime has dropped by an impressive 19 per cent. The hon. Gentleman argues, understandably and of course, from the perspective and for the interests of his own constituents, but the figures are encouraging, and specifically so for his area. The basic command units of Somerset East and West have higher sanction detection rates than the force overall, and Somerset East's should be particularly congratulated on its achievements in reducing burglary and vehicle crime by 29 per cent. and 27 per cent. respectively when compared with the same period last year.
	As those figures show, the force continues to make strong progress in reducing crime and in tackling issues of real concern to local communities. That the force has been able to make those achievements reflects on the efforts and commitment of local officers and, as the hon. Gentleman was generous enough to acknowledge, on the considerable investment that the Government are making in the police service. On a like-for-like basis, expenditure on policing supported by Government grant across England and Wales has increased by 27 per cent. in real terms since 1997, which is a cash increase of 3.7 billion, from around 7 billion in 1997 to 10.7 billion in the current year.
	We have increased police numbers to record levels across England and Wales. Today, we have more than 141,000 police officers, which is 14,000 more than there were in 1997. We have more than 70,000 dedicated support staff. We also have 6,300 community support officers and are committed to increasing their numbers to 24,000 by 2008. As a first step towards that, last autumn we made available 50 million in new money to enable forces to recruit and retain 1,500 new community support officers.
	Avon and Somerset police has benefited from that investment. At March this year, the force had 3,384 police officers, which is 395 more than in 1997. The former chair of the police authority, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who told us that he used to come to argue for 200 or 300 more officers will be very pleased that that aspiration has become a reality following the investment that the Government are making. Avon and Somerset police also benefits from 144 community support officers and 396 special constables, which is an increase of 91 special constables over the figure of a year ago. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Taunton underline the important role that community support officers play. Yes, there are limits on their responsibilities, but they are very much part of the team and can make a considerable difference. The big increase in the number of special constables is an impressive reflection on the hon. Gentleman's constituents and those who wish to volunteer and make a contribution in that way.
	Avon and Somerset police has received its fair share of the resources available this year. It is receiving 170 million in general grants, an increase of 4.8 per cent. or 7.8 million over last year. That increase is significantly higher than the minimum increase of 3.75 per cent. that we guaranteed for all forces, and is well above police pay and inflation increases.
	On top of general grants, the force is continuing to benefit from a range of specific grants. Avon and Somerset is receiving around 14.7 million in specific grants and capital provision. The hon. Gentleman has expressed concerns that local police resources have been targeted primarily towards the Bristol area, perhaps unfairly in the view of his constituents. It is rightly a matter for the chief constable and the police authority to decide how best to deploy the available resources across the force area, taking account of local operational priorities. It is only fair to point out that the number of police officers covering the three Somerset basic command units has increased by almost 8 per cent., or 59 additional officers, since 2002, compared to an increase of just over 4 per cent., or 48 officers, for Bath and Bristol. Indeed, Somerset is comparatively well resourced overall, with 89 community support officers compared to 37 in Bath and Bristol.
	The hon. Gentleman will know that since 200001 we have made extra resources available specifically to enhance the accessibility and visibility of policing in areas with the most widespread populationsthe third of his three themes was high visibility for policing, and it is very important. Avon and Somerset is one of 31 shire forces that have benefited from the annual 30 million rural policing fund. Avon and Somerset currently receives some 1 million pounds a year from the fund, which is money that can be spent entirely at local discretion, to promote policing in more rural areas.
	I understand that Avon and Somerset has used its allocation to continue investment in, and to meet some of the ongoing costs of, the bobby van project, which provides extra security to vulnerable members of the community, especially those over 65, and victims of crime. The funds have also been used to help support the mobile police stations of the community support unit.
	The hon. Gentleman put the issue of structural reform of the police service at the heart of his speech. The Government believe that it is a crucial step towards ensuring that our police service is equipped to meet the threats posed by terrorism, serious and organised crime, and civil emergencies, as well as the other important priority of effective neighbourhood policing. It is not a question of either/or, but of both. One must complement the other. We cannot deny that the horrific events of 7 July have raised the stakes and made it even more important to grasp the structural issue decisively. The Government cannot ignore the findings of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, which concluded, in a report published last month and to which the hon. Gentleman referred, that the 43 force structure is
	no longer fit for purpose.

Paul Goggins: I shall come on to those issues, although I shall not say this evening whether I think that the Avon and Somerset force is too big or too small. We are placing the emphasis of the development of the new map of the force structure in the hands of local police authorities and others, so people at the local level can come forward with what they regard as a workable structure. Towards the end of the year, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will form his conclusions on the specific proposals. I will say something relevant to the hon. Gentleman's question in just a moment.
	It is important to emphasise that the proposal for structural change and the specific issues raised by the review are ones determined not by Ministers and officials in the Home Office in Marsham street, however remote that may appear to be, but by the Home Secretary's independent, professional advisers on policing matters. The HMIC's report Closing the Gap is the product of a detailed examination of the capacity and capability of all 43 forces to provide key protective services to national standards. We owe it to the public to ensure that all forces have sufficient capacity and resilience to counter terrorism and domestic extremism, to tackle serious organised crime, to undertake major murder investigations and to respond to public order incidents and civil emergencies.
	In light of the HMIC's conclusions no responsible Government could fail to act, but as the inspectorate has made clear, this is not simply an exercise in redrawing boundaries on a map; in restructuring the organisation of the police service in England and Wales we need to reconfigure how services are provided. I know that the response of some to the HMIC report has been to ask, as the hon. Member for Taunton did, What about local policing? The hon. Gentleman is right to ask that question; it is a legitimate and important one. I put it to him that far from undermining local policing, restructuring is essential if we are to underpin neighbourhood policing.
	The clear message from the HMIC is that the demands now placed on forces by what are called level 2 threatsthose of terrorism, serious organised crime and so onare growing and, if nothing is done, will increasingly draw resources away from neighbourhood policing. The HMIC found in its review that smaller forces are less likely to be able to cope with those demands and more likely to be swamped when a crisis occurs. Larger, more strategic forces will protect neighbourhood policing by ensuring that forces have the resilience to tackle crimes at all levels, minimising the need to take officers away from their important neighbourhood duties.
	The HMIC looked at a number of options for restructuring, but concluded that the creation of strategic forces with at least 4,000 officers or 6,000 staff offered the best business solution. Given that threshold, it seems highly unlikely that a stand-alone Somerset forceI know that the hon. Gentleman argued for such a force in his maiden speechwould meet the requirements. The Home Secretary has made it clear that he has no blueprint for forcing amalgamations; the initiative for the reform should be and is being driven locally by people who know their communities and the challenges faced by policing in each area.
	The Home Secretary has asked all forces and police authorities to submit proposals for restructuring by the end of December. The local discussion of the options will be informed by the design criteria set out in the HMIC report, including such matters as size, geography, coterminosity with partner agencies, criminal markets and identity. The Home Secretary has made it clear that to minimise disruption the proposals should not subdivide an existing force between two or more new forces. There would therefore need to be exceptionally strong reasons in favour of the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of a Somerset and Dorset force, as that would mean subdividing existing forces.
	Irrespective of whatever restructuring happens at force level, for most people the priorities of policing are and will remain, as the hon. Gentleman made plain in his speech, the local park, the town centre, the neighbourhood and the community. The Government and the police service recognise that and we are working hand in hand with the Association of Chief Police Officers to roll out accessible and responsive neighbourhood policing across all forces, including the hon. Gentleman's, by 2008. We want every community to benefit from dedicated, accessible and visible neighbourhood policing teams, led by police officers, but involving special constables, community support officers, volunteers, neighbourhood wardens, the security industry and others, and for communities to know who their local police officers are and how to contact them.
	We see neighbourhood policing as the key to ensuring that mainstream local policing services are driven by neighbourhood and community needs, so that the people who are affected by problems of crime and disorder, and who are often best placed to find solutions that are right for their own area, have a real say in setting priorities. Neighbourhood policing is the principal focus of our policing agendausing local knowledge and intelligence from local people to target crime hot spots and the disorder problems that cause local communities the most concern. Effective neighbourhood policing is about making a difference to people's quality of life. It will empower communities to have a real say in local policing issues and in setting local priorities. They will know who their local police officers are and how to contact them, and know, too, how well their police are doing locally in tackling crime and antisocial behaviour.
	Neighbourhood policing means becoming more effective at crime reduction by working directly with local communities. It is about recognising that policing will be effective only when it is performed as a shared undertaking, not only on behalf of the public, but with the public. The public are more than users of services: they are stakeholders and they should be shapers of the way in which their neighbourhoods are policed. Our goal is a police service that is enabled to provide strong, planned, forward-looking protective services, based on the basic command unit structure, which is at the heart of local policing and which remains the key platform for the delivery of services.
	The hon. Member for Taunton emphasised his concern about binge drinking and he has discussed elsewhere alcohol-related crime. With his constituent, John McClintock, he has championed the use of shatterproof glass in pubs in the area. I congratulate both Mr. McClintock and the hon. Gentleman on their success in that respect. I hope that they are satisfied that the new powers that will be rolled out under the Licensing Act 2003 and the measures that we propose in the Violent Crime Reduction Bill will give their local police force an even greater capacity to tackle that issue and defeat those who, often fuelled by alcohol, cause mayhem in our communities.
	I acknowledge that crime remains too high in all our constituencies, but that is precisely why the Government have embarked on their ambitious reform agenda to help the police to focus on their key tasks and to work alongside local people as partners in building safer communities. I believe that that approach will benefit all our constituents, not least those of the hon. Member for Taunton.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Seven o'clock.